Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
But tinsel isn't made of gold or silver. Did you know that?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But tinsel isn't made of gold or silver. Did you know that?
Got any Morgan silver dollars?Well now... I should correct that...
I have some gold. I have some silver... This year I may just lay it on the branches....
Then you can see. View attachment 36606
I do have something against the NIV. It's not missing verses or some kind of theological bias... those are small issues that exist in EVERY Bible.That's good. "Nearly Inspired Version." - LOL
I don't don't have anything against the KJV. I just prefer the NIV.
I do have a problem with the KJO types.
I laugh when they tell me that the NIV left verses out of the Bible.
Have you heard that one? - LOL
I mostly use blueletterbible.org nowadays. Click on a verse and it will show you... more information than you ever wanted lol.I have a Greek interlinear NT with KJV on one side and NIV on the other.
A great resource really.
Definitely. The KJB was THE textbook of the English language for 200+ years. Standardization of word usage and spelling in English all comes from the KJB. That doesn't have anything to do with theology, but it's a big deal anyway.And frankly, the KJV of 1611 was a triumph in Bible translation FOR THE TIME.
All done by hand. No computers, or telephones, or...
I have a similar view.I would believe the prophets when they quote God.
They must have determined that it wasn't in the original autograph?I still think John 5:4 should be in there though. Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4
I believe the Word of God are those times Jesus or God are quoted.I have a similar view.
I don't view every bit of the Bible as inspired - just the parts that say they are. Turns out that's basically the books of prophecy plus David's Psalms and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, and Jesus' words in the New.
Also, having taken that view, I find that the prophets often don't agree with the priests.The Bible doesn't agree with itself quite as well as most Christians want.
-Jarrod
Sadly no.Got any Morgan silver dollars?
I collected some as a paper boy in the 60's. They were still in circulation, though just barely.Sadly no.
At one time I had 14, but they are gone...
And I am not gonna spend what they want to start collecting again.
I wonder what you think of David?I believe the Word of God are those times Jesus or God are quoted.
I learn from people who are not perfect. We all know David wasn't perfect, but I read from Psalms every day.I wonder what you think of David?
On the one hand, David does not claim to be a prophet and rarely mentions "the Word of the Lord" in his writings.
But on the other hand, the New Testament (and Luke in particular) seems to make a point of singling out his Psalms as being both prophetic and inspired:
Thoughts? :)
- Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake... (Acts 1)
- Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet.... (Acts 2)
Seems... No one can take the time to comment... This is why you ALL Fail.... How can you be GOD... and then claim to have one!!!!Yea.... BUT .... You know not... Whom.... I AM!!!
Silly Child....
Elohim
Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.
The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.
The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification:
Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.
Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.
You Speak as a CHILD.... What do you Know of John 1:1....Technically, the Bible is not the "Word of God." The Word of God is not a book. It is a Person, namely Jesus Christ. The first chapter of the Gospel of John starts, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John is speaking of Jesus here. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
The Bibles we have are translations of one of the two main methods of transmission of the Word of God to us. But only if correctly interpreted. Self-interpretation isn't the way to go, as St. Peter warns in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The reason we have so many differing and contradictory interpretations of the Bible is because people rely on personal interpretation that St. Peter warns against.
Christ didn't write a book to spread His truths. He created a Church. It would have, from a practical viewpoint, been very inadvisable to base Christ's truths on a book for everyone to read, since until the latest 100 years or so, the vast majority of earth's population would have been excluded because universal literacy wasn't of interest before that. The vast majority of people could neither read nor write.
Thanks for weighing in on this topic.Technically, the Bible is not the "Word of God." The Word of God is not a book. It is a Person, namely Jesus Christ. The first chapter of the Gospel of John starts, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John is speaking of Jesus here. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
The Bibles we have are translations of one of the two main methods of transmission of the Word of God to us. But only if correctly interpreted. Self-interpretation isn't the way to go, as St. Peter warns in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The reason we have so many differing and contradictory interpretations of the Bible is because people rely on personal interpretation that St. Peter warns against.
Christ didn't write a book to spread His truths. He created a Church. It would have, from a practical viewpoint, been very inadvisable to base Christ's truths on a book for everyone to read, since until the latest 100 years or so, the vast majority of earth's population would have been excluded because universal literacy wasn't of interest before that. The vast majority of people could neither read nor write.
Consider the following verse in accord with what you wrote here:Thanks for weighing in on this topic.
A couple of things to note. Firstly I agree that "the Word of God" is not the Bible.
I had it in quotes in my title as well. So, we agree there.
I also agree that "... the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
But I don't go so far as others in claiming the word WAS Jesus.
Verse 14 tells us that the word BECAME flesh. That flesh was Jesus.
To me, the Word/Logos/logic/reason/purpose isn't a person.
It's a purposeful plan, a meaning and intention. A reasoned and positive outcome for all this.
Which is very good news.
I know my POV on this doesn't agree with the standard dogma.
Try not to hate me for it. Thanks.
Can you also weigh in on the topic title statement?
What is the source of biblical disagreements we see on the forum?
Re 19:13 | And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. |
Thanks. Good point.Consider the following verse in accord with what you wrote here:
Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Lots of questions to which I have no positive answers. I take it all one day at the time and one step at the time trying always to be led by God and/or to follow God.Thanks. Good point.
How do you define Logos? What does it mean?
Why was the Logos BEFORE creation?
And most importantly...
What was the Logos before the Logos BECAME flesh and dwelt among us?
If Jesus Christ was in the beginning before creation, what was his role as Son?
Seems that the Word/Logos only make sense in the context of a fallen creation that needs a Savior. ???
I understand that my view is unorthodox. But I don't care. - LOL
No worries. If my crazy questions are thought-provoking, that is enough.Lots of questions to which I have no positive answers. I take it all one day at the time and one step at the time trying always to be led by God and/or to follow God.
Thanks. Good point.
How do you define Logos? What does it mean?
Why was the Logos BEFORE creation?
And most importantly...
What was the Logos before the Logos BECAME flesh and dwelt among us?
If Jesus Christ was in the beginning before creation, what was his role as Son?
Seems that the Word/Logos only make sense in the context of a fallen creation that needs a Savior. ???
I understand that my view is unorthodox. But I don't care. - LOL